Breaking BAASS, Assessing AATIP and Doubting Thomas ‘DeLonge’

originally posted by: gippo888

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
There are strong dreams based on easily available data,
and then as in the case of UFOlogy,
there is terrible data promoted by professional deceivers
such as the USG.

This does not mean that ufology is all like this
There are people who have dedicated their lives to ufology, there are people who have suffered from encounters with ufos. now we are talking about hundreds of thousands of cases, 70 years
I think witnesses matter ...

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
Your English is fine, you're doing fine!

Thanks, I use google translate

I don't get how people still don't know my positions after 7 years
on ATS.

OF COURSE I concur that many people, good people research
UFOlogy and a variety of them have experiences that are
at a minimum 'interesting'.

But anything promoted by the US government, or the majority
of famous public 'UFO' researhers is almost certainly a lie,
or very confused due to that person listening to the usual
cast of characters who lie and are sometimes even paid to
spread disinformation.

Just becuase congress, or TTSA or some other agent of
disinformation shows a picture of a blob, doesn't
mean that's 'UFO proof' or even 'UFO research'.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
There are strong dreams based on easily available data,
and then as in the case of UFOlogy,
there is terrible data promoted by professional deceivers
such as the USG.

Sorry, I am new to this forum and I only follow this thread

OF COURSE I concur that many people, good people research
UFOlogy and a variety of them have experiences that are
at a minimum 'interesting'.

So you recognize that there is a ufology based on witnesses and that it is not religious ufology

But anything promoted by the US government, or the majority
of famous public 'UFO' researhers is almost certainly a lie,
or very confused due to that person listening to the usual
cast of characters who lie and are sometimes even paid to
spread disinformation.
Just becuase congress, or TTSA or some other agent of
disinformation shows a picture of a blob, doesn't
mean that's 'UFO proof' or even 'UFO research'.

I think the most experienced ufologists do not blindly believe what the Pentagon and the TTSA say but cannot rule out anything.
Let's say the position is on hold because they haven't added anything so far. That UFO case is no different from thousands of others but it has been reportedd by the Pentagon, it is the first time it has happened.
I understand that it means nothing to you, but we have been waiting for 70 years ...
As I said, the communications of the pentagon mainly reach the old ufology because public opinion remains indifferent. In my opinion it is a singular situation ...

a reply to: gippo888

So you recognize that there is a ufology based on witnesses and that it is not religious ufology

There is a phenomenon, which can appear as anything, from a ham
sandwitch to a universe, that some people experience sometimes,
and they confuse that experience wtih a 'nuts and bolts ufo',

which all the evidence supports, governmental and non-governmental
(as far as I know, and I know a lot of people)

has nothing in any way to do with actual 'nuts and bolts' UFOs.

UFOlogy is a non-field field. Something which does not exist.

100% pure deception.

And the 'real deal' is also close to '100% deception'.

People that I know, spend their entire lives studying it,

and come away with maybe 1 or 2 new bits of knowledge.

But in any case,

I don't want to argue about this silly topic.. I am finished with this converation chain.

"As the “keeper” from the Star Trek episode “The Menagerie” said, “May your reality be as pleasant.” "

Best,

Kev

originally posted by: gippo888
Let's say the position is on hold because they haven't added anything so far. That UFO case is no different from thousands of others but it has been reportedd by the Pentagon, it is the first time it has happened.

I don't know how you can say that, the pentagon reported on UFO cases back in 1952:



So the pentagon admitted they had UFOs back in 1952 they couldn't identify. Samford says they had trouble "measuring" them. So where are we at in 2022? The pentagon now has some very advanced sensors yet they still claim they can't measure them, but it's not surprising to me since unless balloons have special radar reflectors attached to them, the balloons may not show up on radar so that's one measurement they can't do on balloons which the "UFO" you seem to be so excited about looks like it could very well be a balloon to me and I've seen nothing to contradict that view despite your claims otherwise.

In one of the highly promoted cases involving David Fravor, he had a sophisticated camera system integrated into his helmet system that he could have turned on with the flick of a switch but he didn't bother to turn it on. So in that case I can't say it was hard to "measure" when the pilot didn't even attempt to photograph it.

The main thing that seems to have changed to me is that back in 1952 they didn't seem to think the UFOs posted a threat (watch the Samford video embedded, he says as much), and now the changed narrative is that they seem to be claiming they think the UFOs may now possibly pose a threat. But they still talk about the same "measurement" problem today that Samford talked about back in 1952, and in that context the crappy video of what looks it could be a balloon that you seem to be excited about isn't a very satisfactory measurement.

So we don't seem to have made much progress from 1952 to 1972 in this "measurement" regard despite having highly upgraded sensors today, though I suppose in the highly promoted David Fravor incident, it would help to actually turn the camera on. Or maybe that's the "cover story" sold to the public, and the advanced sensors are much more capable than they are telling us and this whole "now they are UAPs, not UFOs" excersise from 2017-2022 is a big deception project. In support of that idea is they claimed to have never identified the "UFO" that looks just like a batman balloon, and it's impossible to believe the pentagon doesn't have analysts that can recognize a batman balloon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Lucidparadox

So alien beings just happen to create a spacecraft with the exact same design as the Batman balloon as shown?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So we don't seem to have made much progress from 1952 to 1972 in this "measurement"

I have no opinion on the Nimitz ufos, but I agree there’s nothing new since the 40 and 50s. TTSA I always said has brought nothing new but the threat meme, and that’s why I think this is and was all a military-industrial complex expansion and maintenance operation.

And after the Russians brought the cold war back and now even hot war, TTSA no longer was needed so now they're a moribund shell of what they were.

I agree with Gippo, though there are many ufos that turn out to be nothing spectacular, and the stats bear that out but 15 to maybe 20 percent are NOT known, therefore that’s enough to substantiate a legitimate paranormal phenomenon going on.

One can get into the weeds of what it is with any theory, or argue over events and flaps, and I too have been disgusted with the Roswells and Bob Lazars, hoaxers I believe, and phony ufo events, and don't have an opinion one way or the other on the Nimitz but there are just too many ufo events that are legitimate mysteries to say we don't have an unusual phenomenon going on.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Saw a similar photo comparing this one to a particular batman balloon..

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
"As the “keeper” from the Star Trek episode “The Menagerie” said, “May your reality be as pleasant.” "
Best,
Kev

May your reality be as pleasant .... sorry if i stressed you out but i wanted to understand, thanks.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur and peaceinoutz

I have the same doubts and suspicions you have, unfortunately I have nothing to add

I have no opinion on the Nimitz ufos, but I agree there’s nothing new since the 40 and 50s. TTSA I always said has brought nothing new but the threat meme, and that’s why I think this is and was all a military-industrial complex expansion and maintenance operation.

I agree, I think we will not understand their projects but I hope they will go ahead with this "disclosure", maybe they will make some mistakes, it can happen when you are too sure.

And after the Russians brought the cold war back and now even hot war, TTSA no longer was needed so now they're a moribund shell of what they were.

if their goal was funding, I think this awkward "disclosure" will be ended ... in one way or another
It will be interesting to see how they do it ...

youtu.be...

Interview with Ryan Graves, gives good insight into what happened on the east coast. Seems his squadron was going through radar upgrades and they were able to get positive contacts on the uap's with the APG-79 radar vs Apg-73 where they could be perceived as anomalies. So weapons system upgrades appear to be playing a role.

The public has not been shown any of the radar data which is probably a lot more telling than the videos we have seen.

Again I think all the US Navy reports are a pretty big deal. Things are being seen and tracked in military MOA's 100's of miles off coast in some cases. Single engine aircraft won't be there, ifr aircraft will not be vectored through an active MOA. These guys were practicing there all the time getting radar contact and sometimes visual contact and couldn't identify.

The Navy says they didn't try and contact the Uap's....highly doubt that. They would have tryed to establish radio contact on either freq associated with the MOA, controlling agency or on guard.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The main thing that seems to have changed to me is that back in 1952 they didn't seem to think the UFOs posted a threat (watch the Samford video embedded, he says as much), and now the changed narrative is that they seem to be claiming they think the UFOs may now possibly pose a threat. But they still talk about the same "measurement" problem today that Samford talked about back in 1952, and in that context the crappy video of what looks it could be a balloon that you seem to be excited about isn't a very satisfactory measurement.

I'm not excited by the case, in ufology there are hundreds of similar cases, I'm surprised that the pentagon shows something new
Perhaps the measurements are unsatisfactory because this is a random sighting, only viewed on the video at a later time.
I don't know if Scott Bray has given any info on this

a reply to: Slyder12

Its a pity the conviction of these pilots is absolutely the most compelling part of the "evidence".
As you elude with the tech upgrades comment- you can't really have a sensible investigation into events whilst there are >1 unknown/classified technologies at play during the time of observation.

a reply to: Slyder12

The problem is that the origins of this circus are really odd when you dig beyond the glossy surface of narrative control by the people involved.

When the story first surfaced on ATS in 2007.

The craft was described as a "disk".

A day later it was a completely different story. The craft was a "pill or oblong" shape. With details more familiar to those only catching up with the story in 2017 or beyond.

The leak of the tape was supposedly investigated. Yet despite several Ufologists on ATS tracking down the person claiming to be the leaker, the might of America's intelligence services failed to do so. They didn't even think to contact those who had communicated with the leaker. This is also despite a claim that a potentially sensitive PowerPoint presentation had been acquired and said ufologists were attempting to get their hands on it!! Amazing how incompetent the US military can be.

Susan Gough even claimed that Navy officials became aware that the video had been posted online in 2009. (Two years later).

“With respect to the 2004 sighting by aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68); that video was widely shared throughout the ship at that time,” Gough writes. “In 2007, one of those crewmembers posted the video onto the public web.”

But in terms of investigating the video leak, Gough writes, “Given the time since recording (approximately 5 years), the widespread distribution of the recording within the ship at the time of recording, and the size of the crew at the time (approximately 5,000), it was determined that there was no way to accurately determine who might have released the video.”…

archive.li... - Pop Mechanics

I've never heard that the recording was subject to "widespread distribution". Nor would 5,000 crew members have access to it. Which sounds to me like they don't want to find the leaker. They never bothered contacting any of the ufologists on ATS who had actually spoken to him.
They seem happy that the story, in all its ambiguity, is out there.

And don't forget if we are going by pilot testimony then why does everyone ignore that in the Gimbal video we can clearly hear that it's "f^&%!^g drone bro!"

a reply to: mirageman

The problem is that the origins of this circus are really odd when you dig beyond the glossy surface of narrative control by the people involved.

Truly a three-ring circus.

All this confusion surrounding this is incredible.


So, are you saying the government is or was just negligent or dumb, or didn’t much care about these videos? Which may indicate that they were never a big thing.

And that they wanted these videos out, for whatever reason.

So many twists and turns in this story like a pretzel.


Do you know what Zondo says about the fact that the videos have long been out before he so heroically did it in 2017.

What are you surprised at?
Ufology has always been like this: every testimony has always been refuted by other testimonies, usually anonymous ... it's called debunking.
I understand the work of mirageman but the risk is to give the same weight to true and false clues, because it is really difficult to distinguish them
The evidence becomes true when the Pentagon says so

a reply to: peaceinoutz

All this confusion surrounding this is incredible. So, are you saying the government is or was just negligent or dumb, or didn’t much care about these videos? Which may indicate that they were never a big thing. ...

I wish I had it all worked out but as I've outlined in the OP, deception is part and parcel of every developed nation's tool kit.

If you are aware of the plot to the film Argo. Then even if you knew the CIA had set up a film company called Studio Six back in 1979, how would you even begin to guess why? How would you link that to getting diplomatic staff out of Iran.

I did cover the whole genesis of the FLIR video story on ATS in more detail here. Interesting to see who appeared here and then disappeared fast as he can't take any heat whatsoever.

Plus of course the guy who was behind the SERPO hoax with Doty was also behind securing the AAWSAP contract. Even though it was not about studying UFOs.

.....One of the scientists who helped figure it out is a physicist named Dr. Hal Puthoff. He wrote the proposal that helped Bigelow land the contract to study UFOs....

Source

All roads lead back to Vegas again....

a reply to: gippo888

I am trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. But there are so many vested interests all clinging onto ufology.

But would the Pentagon have the answer?

originally posted by: mirageman
I am trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. But there are so many vested interests all clinging onto ufology.
But would the Pentagon have the answer?

I appreciate your work, it is important to bring out all the clues but the subject is so controversial that any certainty can be denied.
70 years of clues say the Pentagon knows a lot but they also say we can't trust the Pentagon
I think the pentagon used Elizondo to know how to carry out his project
So far, there have been cases that do not affect public opinion, videos that provide clues only by delving into the details, they are speaking the language of ufologists
Let's see if they will change their strategy ...

a reply to: mirageman

The guy who wrote that great book, Mirage Men (A book I’ve read twice and enjoyed both times, as well as the documentary), I would hope might write a sequel and call it: Mirage Men II the TTSA Mirage. That might be a blockbuster. The MSM and the ufology-obsessed circuit have disseminated the distortions and disinformation that came out of that mob. A Mirage Men II would be the perfect counter to that.
link

For 4 bucks, I'm going to buy that book, it belongs in any ufo buffs library!

a reply to: mirageman

All roads lead back to Vegas again...

Your buddy Knapp said the same thing on the season-ending of the secret of skinwalker ranch.

He said all roads lead from Skinwalker...i.e. Bigelow. Of course, he's referring to the creation of AAWSAP and the 2017 ufo revolution.

a reply to: peaceinoutz


I heard there was a new comedy series about the whole genesis of TTSA in the pipeline....



#Cast subject to availability and change.